ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Critical Questions Surrounding the Shot-Blasting Treatment of Titanium Dental Implants.
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review addresses four controversial aspects of shot blasting in the surface treatment of titanium dental implants. Shot blasting, which involves the projection of abrasive particles onto the titanium surface, is widely used to achieve surface roughness that promotes osteoblastic activity and, consequently, high levels of osseointegration. The first issue examined is the effect of residual alumina particles that remain embedded in the titanium surface after blasting. It has been shown that these residues-typically not exceeding 8% of the surface-can actually enhance osseointegration and even exhibit mild bactericidal properties. The second issue concerns the use of titanium dioxide particles for blasting. Our findings indicate that due to its low abrasiveness, titanium dioxide produces minimal surface roughness and low surface energy, resulting in limited osteoblastic adhesion, inferior fatigue performance, and reduced osseointegration compared to alumina-blasted surfaces. The third topic focuses on the role of compressive residual stress induced by grit blasting. Residual stress contributes to increased surface hydrophilicity, enhancing osteoblast adhesion and mineralization, as evidenced by elevated alkaline phosphatase levels. Finally, the fourth issue involves the effect of acid etching following grit blasting. This treatment introduces microroughness superimposed on the macroroughness generated by grit blasting. In vivo studies demonstrate that grit blasting is the primary driver of osseointegration, while acid etching provides only a marginal improvement in bone-implant contact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.